Weblog maken?


MaakEenWebsite.nl (tip)
Totaal slechts 10 euro per maand incl. domeinnaam en gratis overzetten van uw bestaande weblog bij Bloggers.nl 100 MB ruimte
emailadres
Lees meer..... en bestel
Gratis geld verdienen met e-mails lezen? Meld je aan bij
Zinngeld, Surfrace, Qassa en Euroclix !

Op zoek naar God?

Vincent's blog

19/7/2013 - Lung Association Recommends Smoking

The Truth About Nicotine It is widely believed that nicotine go to website causes cancer and heart disease. But it is other ingredients in tobacco smoke--not nicotine--that cause these. In fact, nicotine is an extremely effective treatment for several disease conditions, and can prevent a number of other serious, debilitating diseases. It is not lack of willpower but rather http://WhiteSmokeReview.com is smoke stik e9 nicotine's "wonder-drug" qualities source that prevent so many smokers from being able to quit.
Concerns On Electronic Cigarette Usage When it comes to Newcomers http://nicotinetruth.blogspot.com/2010/05/lung-association-recommends-smoking.html
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

19/7/2013 - V2 Cigs and National Tobacco Co. Announce Partnership

This represents a perfect synergy. With more than one million customers spread evenly across the country, V2 Cigs is perfectly positioned to drive online buyers into traditional retail outlets. The company will soon be adding a store locator to its Website at v2cigs.com, and a downloadable mobile app to help existing V2 Cigs customers find their favorite products at local retail stores. V2 Cigs products are already sold in a variety of national retailers, such as HESS gas stations and Pilot Truck Stops, but the rate of retail deployment will increase significantly as http://www.qh9999.com/v2-cigs/ a result of the new partnership. NTC and V2 Cigs expect to expand distribution to no less than 30,000 additional retail locations this year alone.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.csdecisions.com/2013/04/23/v2-cigs-and-national-tobacco-co-announce-partnership/

V2 Cigs, National Tobacco Announce E-Cig Partnership

"NTC products are currently sold in over 150,000 retail locations in the United States," said Graham Purdy, vice president of sales and trade marketing for NTC. "We are very excited to add the V2 Cigs brand to our product arsenal. The manufacturing and online marketing power of V2 Cigs complements NTC's extensive field sales organization and account management teams. This strategic partnership will allow retailers to tap into a significant portion of adult electronic cigarette consumers that can only find their brand today in the online environment. This represents a perfect synergy." V2 Cigs will soon be adding a store locator to its web site at www.v2cigs.com , as well as a downloadable mobile app to help existing V2 Cigs customers find its products at local retail stores. http://v2cigs-couponcode.com/v2-pcc-portable-charging-case-sophisticated-smoking-style/
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.cspnet.com/news/tobacco/articles/v2-cigs-national-tobacco-announce-e-cig-partnership

0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

19/7/2013 - ANTZ CHECK #5: E-cigarettes will lead to smoking

EGO BOOSTER THE LIE: E-cigarettes will not only cause ex-smokers to resume smoking, but will also act as a "gateway" to smoking for youth. "...by simulating the cigarette experience, electronic cigarettes might reactivate the habit in ex-smokers. They could also be a gateway into tobacco abuse for young people who are not yet hooked." - Dr. Harvey Simon, Harvard Health ?It is clear from [C.S. MottChildren?s Hospital National Poll on Children?s Health] that U.S. adults are not waiting for scientific evidence of adverse health effects of e-cigarettes before before asking that they be regulated and restricted. Rather, they support restrictions on e-cigarettes based on potential risks?not just immediate health effects, but also the possibility that e-cigarettes may lead youth toward later use of tobacco http://WhiteSmokeReview.com catomizers that work with green smoke cigarettes.? - Matthew M. Davis, director of poll & associate professor of pediatrics and internal medicine in the Child Health Evaluation and Research Unit at the U-M Medical School. "The FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all voiced their concern that electronic cigarettes could lead to an increase in nicotine addiction and youth tobacco use." - Center for Public Health and Tobacco Policy ANTZ CHECK: Because there is no way to prove these claims, we must believe the "experts" simply on their "say-so." However, the fact that they are even putting forth these ridiculous theories shows just how little these "experts" really know about the product they are trying to ban. 1) Smokers who quit smoking already have a very high likelihood of relapse. Those who quit by using gums and patches have a relapse rate of 93% or more. (That means they start smoking again.) Additionally, for reasons still unknown to the "experts," relapses frequently happen even if the smoker hasn't smoked for years and couldn't possibly still be addicted to nicotine. Therefore, it is extremely likely that any "ex-smokers" drawn to e-cigarettes were already considering smoking traditional cigarettes but decided to try e-cigarettes instead. In that case, the e-cigarettes will have actuallyprevented the ex-smoker from resuming smoking. If the smoker likes the e-cigarette, he will not switch to traditional cigarettes, he will continue to use the e-cigarette until he decides to quit again. If he does not like the e-cigarette, he quit using it or will start smoking again. Either way, it's not the e-cigarette use that will cause an ex-smoker to start smoking again. 2) As smokers who switch quickly find out, using an e-cigarette (popularly known as "vaping," rather than smoking) is actually quite different from the "habit" of smoking. Instead of a long periods of abstinence, followed by 10-15 minutes of smoking, most e-cigarette users find that they will just take a few puffs from the device as needed throughout the day. It actually works more like a slow-release nicotine patch, by providing an even keel throughout the day instead of periodic, high spikes of nicotine intake (since most smokers will smoke an entire cigarette, even if they don't need that much nicotine, just to psychologically "make it" until their next break.) 3)Propylene glycol, the base of most e-cigarette liquids, is slightly sweet, which is why it is also used as a base in products such as medicines and drink mixes. This is also why many smokers don't like the artificial tobacco flavors and switch to using a flavor that tastes good in a sweeter base, such as fruit, sweets or beverage flavors. Because of this dramatic change in flavors, a significant number of e-cigarette consumers find that the taste of real cigarette smoke has become extremely unpalatable to them. It simply doesn't taste good to them anymore and they much prefer their mint, cherry or coffee flavor now. It becomes one more deterrent to returning to traditional cigarettes. Given this fact, it seems extremely unlikely that non-smoking youth would start using "candy-flavored" e-cigarettes ( see ANTZ CHECK #2 regarding "candy" flavors and youth ) and suddenly decide to start smoking harsh-tasting real cigarettes, which most smokers will tell you are an acquired taste to begin with. It's like suggesting that kids who drink sweet-tasting Mountain Dew will suddenly want to switch to bitter, black espresso for their caffeine fix. (Note: Most of the same arguments above can also be made for smoke-free tobacco alternatives. There is no reason or evidence that people who start using smoke-free tobacco products (especially mild, pleasantly-flavored brands) would want or need to "graduate" to smoking - unless the ANTZ get their way and they ban sales of all tobacco products except cigarettes.) CONCLUSION: "Save the children" is a popular tactic for ANTZ. However, not only is there no evidence that youth are even choosing to use e-cigarettes over traditional cigarettes, the idea that kids who experiment with e-cigarettes would suddenly want to smoke is completely illogical. Clues that there is no evidence that this is a risk are words the ANTZ use such as "may" site and "could." They count on the fact that people will rely on opinions from people who are self-proclaimed "experts," rather than any actual evidence. It's scaremongering, pure and simple. I rate this lie to be an Ego Booter. ANTZ Check Lie icons: A Toxic Shocker: Using negative comparisons and analogy to make something sound more dangerous than it really is. Often uses scary-sounding chemical names. A B*** S*** Lie: Absolutely untrue, no evidence whatsoever to support the claim. A Truth Twister: Presenting facts in such a way that something that could just as easily be seen as positive is presented only as negativeor a careful use of specific words to change the focus of a discussion. An Ego Booster: Relying on an authoritative or respected reputation to give the impression that an opinion or theory is a known fact. You must believe what they say solely because they are someone "important."
Most Often Posed Concerns Concerning Electronic Cigarettes http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2012/10/antz-check-5-e-cigarettes-will-lead-to.html
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

18/7/2013 - LIRR Rules Allow E-Cigs, But LIRR Bans Them Anyway

Occupy Wall Street Gives NYPD Perfect Excuse To Crack Down On Elderly Veterans Ilana Knopf, the Director for the Center for Public Health and Tobacco Policy at New England LawBoston, declined to comment on the language of the LIRR's law, noting that the Center is barred from discussing specific laws or policies. She also declined to say whether future smoking bans that would successfully ban e-cigarettes should include the language of "burning." But as a general matter, Knopf said the Center supports the idea of smoking bans extending to electronic cigarettes. "It's an evolving issue, and there's so much that's unknown about e-cigarettes... but in general it is positive for public health to include e-cigarettes in smoke-free policies. That you're inhaling this substance that's not regulated is terrifying." Electronic cigarettes contain nicotine ( and/or other substances, like coupons for v2 cigs fog juice, flavoring, and water), but not tobacco.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://gothamist.com/2013/07/17/lirr_ecigs_ban.php

Eonsmoke Electronic Cigarettes Reaches 15,000 Retail Locations in USA

"Eonsmoke has become a regional powerhouse in the electric v2 cigarette business because of our differentiated look, competitive margins, and diversified flavor line up," says Oleg Spiridonov, Vice President of Eonsmoke, LLC. "We're starting to go national by opening distribution relationships and people are really starting to notice; the company is starting to get intense investor interest after last month's major Big Tobacco news of investment into electronic cigarettes." Last month in June 2013, Phillip Morris announced they will launch their own electronic cigarette brand MarkTen in August of the same year. R.J. Reynolds has announced similar news with their brand, Vuse which is expected to go national later this year. Lorillard already sells an e-cigarette under the Blu Cigs trademark after the acquisition was made in April 2012.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://finance.yahoo.com/news/eonsmoke-electronic-cigarettes-reaches-15-113000020.html

0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

18/7/2013 - Anti-Smoking Advocates Call FDA Action on Slightly Modified Cigarettes "Historic"; They are Correct, But Only for Historic Stupidity

...Providing the whole story behind tobacco news. Friday, July 05, 2013 Anti-Smoking Advocates Call FDA Action on Slightly Modified Cigarettes "Historic"; They are Correct, But Only for Historic Stupidity According to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, the agency took a " historic " action last week that is going to reduce "preventable disease and death" due to tobacco. Dr. Hamburg noted that the FDA is the only agency in the world that has these powers. And the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids also boasted of the historic nature of the FDA's action. QUIZ What was this historic action taken by the FDA which will prevent disease and death due to tobacco? A. Implemented an anti-smoking media campaign in all 50 states at funding levels recommended by the CDC. B. Banned the use of menthol flavoring in all cigarettes. C. Mandated a reduction of nicotine levels in cigarettes to below a level capable of sustaining addiction. D. Increased the age of sale for cigarettes to 21. E. Restricted access to cigarettes to a prescription-only basis. F. Required the reduction of formaldehyde, benzene, and nitrosamine levels to trace levels. G. Made sure that a couple of cigarette brands that are essentially the same as existing brands and which confer essentially the same public health risk do not enter the market. The Rest of the Story Arguably, choices A-F are measures that truly would be historic and truly would prevent disease and death due to tobacco. On the other hand, blog url measure G is the one action above that would be meaningless and do nothing to protect the public's health. Sadly, if your answer was "G," you http://WhiteSmokeReview.com what cartomizers fit v2 cigs are correct. We know that minor changes in cigarettes do not correspond to substantial differences in public health risk. In fact, whenever cigarette companies have suggested that this might be the case, they have been immediately accused of fraud and taken to the courtroom or ordered to stop making such inane and unsupported claims. How things have changed! Now the FDA can make essentially the same claim - arguing that very minor changes in cigarettes can substantially alter the public health risk associated with these products - yet the agency gets away with the same fraud that the tobacco companies were not able to get away with. I have to give Lorillard credit here because unlike the FDA or anti-smoking advocates, Lorillard refrained from making any insinuation that the company's compliance with this aspect of the FDA regulation is in any way protecting the public's health. But not so for the anti-smoking groups, which proclaimed this to be a historic event that is going to save countless lives. The Rest of the Story In 2013, while the tobacco companies themselves acknowledge that all of their cigarettes are equally hazardous, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is telling the public that despite very slight differences in product design, brands of cigarettes that are not identical raise substantially different issues of public health. The Campaign is arguing that despite these very minor differences, cigarette brands that are not identical are substantially different in terms of the public health risk that they pose. Thus, the Campaign argues that minor changes in cigarettes can make these products substantially safer. This is the opposite of the position that the Campaign and other anti-smoking groups have traditionally taken. Previously, when faced with drastic differences in product design (Winston had no additives; Accord involved no combustion), the anti-smoking groups argued that despite these drastic differences, the products were substantially equivalent with regards to the public's health. Now, all of the sudden, even minor differences render cigarettes substantially different in terms of public health risk. How did it come to be that major differences in cigarette design used to be of no substantial public health consequence, while today, even minor differences are of substantial public health consequence? Quite simply, the difference is that in 2009, download the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other anti-smoking groups were successful in convincing Congress to enact the Tobacco Act, and so those groups are now under pressure to make it seem like the Act is going to accomplish something in terms of public health protection. So those groups are trying to convince the public that by strictly regulating very minor changes in cigarettes, the FDA is providing enormous protection to the public's health. In other words, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other anti-smoking groups have reversed their public positions because it is now politically advantageous to make the opposite argument that they made previously. One final point. Many seem to be proclaiming that by acting on these six applications, the FDA has broken the logjam. That's just not apparent to me. Acting on six out of more than 3,000 applications that have been pending for many months does not break the logjam. In my view, the FDA should simply approve the majority of these applications in the next few weeks and make it clear that minor changes in cigarettes do not render these cigarettes substantially different in terms of public health risk. And then the agency should move on and actually do something to protect the public's health. Posted by
Concerns Relating To Electronic Cigarette Use When it comes to Rookies http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/anti-smoking-advocates-call-fda-action.html
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

18/7/2013 - Are E Cigarettes Safe: 4 Vital Considerations

The relatively young nature and apparently lack of peer review of clinical tests has allowed the question ?Are e cigarettes safe?? be posed by many potential users. There is no doubt that this represents a genuine concern that cannot be disregarded despite the growing number of electronic cigarette users as well as the huge chunk it has taken out of the tobacco industry. This device, which was invented in 2003 by a Chinese pharmacist, only made its way to mainstream markets in the United States in 2007. Like most new products, there are huge speculations and misconceptions that accompany its presence and usage. The simple fact is that instead of traditional tobacco leaves, it makes use of a nicotine solution that is heated by a battery-powered mechanism to produce water vapor that quickly turns into mist. Despite the various testimonials from long time users, there are still some sectors questioning its continue safety because of lack of clinical trials and regulation. Some of the reasons why the concern ?Are e cigarettes safe?? can be responded to positively are: The lower nicotine levels. Based on the initial studies conducted on the use of electronic cigarette s, they do not appear to be bad for the heart. In fact, researcher Konstantinos Farsalinos, MD, from the Onassis Cardiac Surgery in Greece, even suggests that the simulating nature of electronic cigarettes can be an effective technique to gradually kick the addictive habit, which has been proven to cause havoc to the health of smokers. Available data on traditional tobacco cigarettes is irrefutable; it contains carcinogenic, toxic, and poisonous chemicals that harm the smoker, the people around them, and the environment. In stark contrast, electronic cigarettes are comparatively less harmful with its type of delivery system, which converts the liquid nicotine solution into water vapor. Although Farsalinos admits before the European Society of Cardiology that studies may be small, electronic cigarettes are still comparatively better. The main reason is that the nicotine content is measureable, unlike in traditional tobacco cigarettes. This means that vapers can choose anywhere from high nicotine content and gradually move to lower nicotine levels. In fact, the presentation of various nicotine strengths give vapers the option to eventually reach nicotine-free levels, where they simply enjoy the motions and sensory experience of smoking, without the debilitating side effects. This is a good way to respond to the concern of ?Are e cigarette s safe?? There are reduced risk levels. Are e cigarette s safe, is a natural concern of those who have never tried the device before. Although not conclusive, the answer to this query would be yes, simply because, as Dr.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/are-e-cigarettes-safe-4-vital-considerations/
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

18/7/2013 - INDYCAR: RLL Expands Sponsorship With Blu eCigs

Lorillard eCigs leading in market share

We had the ability to bring on a primary sponsor for Grahams car in Brazil and are thrilled that blu eCigs has jumped at the opportunity, after an active weekend most recently at the Long Beach Grand Prix. Since its inception in 2009, blu eCigs has consistently led the charge to introduce e-cigarettes as a new class of smoking alternative to the US market and has done so in a pragmatic way - always keeping the customer experience as the central focus. In April 2012, blu eCigs was acquired by Lorillard, Inc., solidifying blu eCigs as a market trailblazer v2 cigarette coupon code and further advancing the tremendous growth opportunity represented by the e-cigarette category. Today, http://v2cigs-couponcode.com/take-pleasure-in-the-best-smoke-at-decreased-price-with-v2-cigs-coupon/ North Carolina-based blu eCigs can be found in over 80,000 retail locations in addition to online and continues to set the standard for product innovation and responsible marketing. We are very pleased with the positive response by fans at this years Long Beach Grand Prix event where blu eCigs had its first ever presence as an IndyCar primary sponsor. We saw the use of e-cigarettes throughout the event, including by our own pit crew, so the IndyCar demographic appears to be the right match for blu, said Matt Coapman, Vice President of Marketing at blu eCigs.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://auto-racing.speedtv.com/article/indycar-rll-expands-sponsorship-with-blu-ecigs/

Doctors beg Aquino: Order e-cigs ban

We urgently appeal to Mr. Aquino and the government to immediately address this new but clear and present danger to the health of the nation, most especially our children, said PMA president Dr. Leo Olarte in a statement. Olarte said the DILG must take action to ban the battery-operated devices following warnings from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Philippines Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/444767/doctors-beg-aquino-order-e-cigs-ban

It has launched an estimated $40 million marketing campaign for the devices. Analyst Bonnie Herzog said blu eCigs have a 37.2 percent market share in June, based primarily on sales in the convenience store channel. She said NJOY was at 33.9 percent, with its market share flat compared with June 2012. Herzog said overall U.S. e-cig sales at convenience stores were up 148.8 percent year over year.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.timesdispatch.com/business/tobacco-industry/lorillard-ecigs-leading-in-market-share/article_0888ab01-a1ba-569f-aff5-831a54911f95.html

0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

18/7/2013 - AAPHP Petitions to FDA on E-Cigarettes

The Truth About Nicotine It is widely believed that nicotine causes cancer and heart disease. But it is other ingredients in tobacco smoke--not nicotine--that check this out cause these. In fact, nicotine is an extremely effective treatment for several disease conditions, and can prevent a number of other serious, debilitating diseases. It is http://WhiteSmokeReview.com v2 cigs refil not lack of willpower but rather nicotine's "wonder-drug" qualities that prevent so many smokers from being able to quit.
E cigarette FAQ For Fledglings http://nicotinetruth.blogspot.com/2010/03/aaphp-petitions-to-fda-on-e-cigarettes.html
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

16/7/2013 - Why It Is Possible to Trust Electronic Cigarettes Reviews

It may be tempting to think of electric cigarette reviews as simply concealed marketing strategies by manufacturers and online retailers. This electronic cigarette dangers can be counter-acted by vapers by making sure reviews are trustworthy and not advertising. They will not have a very satisfactory vaping experience under those conditions. Another concern is the amount of time involved in reading reviews. If they are just self-serving advertising, they will be a waste of time. With the popularity of electronic cigarettes , reviews have been beneficial to potential vapers.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/why-it-is-possible-to-trust-electronic-cigarettes-reviews/
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

16/7/2013 - Electronic Cigarette Opponent Grasps at Straws to Discredit New E-Cigarette Clinical Trial

...Providing the whole story behind tobacco news. Friday, June 28, 2013 Electronic Cigarette Opponent Grasps at Straws to Discredit New E-Cigarette Clinical Trial As I correctly predicted yesterday based on his one-line email inquiry, electronic cigarette opponent (and my mentor, hero, and colleague) Stan Glantz was nonplussed with the clinical trial showing that electronic cigarettes achieved an almost miraculous 13% one-year quit rate among Italian smokers who had no interest in quitting. As I also correctly predicted, he quickly scrambled to try to discredit the study in order to support what I believe is a predetermined conclusion in his mind that electronic cigarettes are useless. Today, he posted on his blog a critique of the study. In his critique, Stan makes two main arguments: 1. "There is not a control group of people who were not using e-cigarettes that would allow assessment of spontaneous quit rates. By not having a true control group that would account for spontaneous quitting without using e-cigarettes one cannot say anything about whether e-cigarettes affected quitting." 2. "The [second] problem is that the authors failed to include the required Yates correction in their calculation of the chi-square test statistic and associated p value. Recalculating the test properly yields p = 0.07, which is no longer statistically significant. Thus, the correct conclusion is that there is no statistically significant difference between the nicotine and non-nicotine e-cigarettes." The Rest of the Story Let's take each of these arguments in turn. First, it is true that the study did not include any control group. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have no idea what the quit rate would have been for smokers with no interest in quitting in the absence of electronic cigarettes. We can simply examine the ample scientific evidence reporting one-year quit rates among smokers in the absence of intervention. However, as I noted yesterday, what we really want is the one-year quit rate among smokers with no interest in quitting. To be conservative, we can use the one-year quit rate among smokers who do want to quit (and try to quit), which is about 3%. Clearly, the quit rate observed in the high-nicotine electronic cigarette group (13%) is considerably larger than the 3% observed for the population of smokers who want to quit and visit this site make quit attempts. The natural quit rate among smokers with no desire to quit would be substantially lower than 3%. In fact, the paper provides population-based data showing that in Italy, the spontaneous quit rate during the study period was a dismal 0.02%. So this first argument does not invalidate the study's conclusion that electronic cigarettes did help achieve smoking cessation for some smokers. There is no scenario under which you would observe 13% of non-motivated smokers quitting within one year without any intervention. It is also important to point out that the comparison group Stan requests is not possible. One could not ethically conduct a clinical trial of smoking cessation in which one group is assigned to receive no intervention. What is really needed is a head-to-head comparison of electronic cigarettes compared to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Stan's second argument is that the study conclusions are invalid because of failure to apply the Yates correction. This argument is invalid because it is a sort of sleight-of-hand. It is kind of like magic, where the magician can succeed in a trick by diverting the audience's attention away from the central event taking place. Why is this argument a diversion? It is a diversion because there is no placebo in this trial. Had this study compared electronic cigarettes with a placebo, then the appropriate analysis would indeed be to statistically compare the cessation rates in the e-cigarette vs. placebo groups. But there was no placebo. The group receiving electronic cigarettes without nicotine was in fact an intervention arm. Even without nicotine, electronic cigarettes have been shown to reduce the craving to smoke. And in fact, in this trial, click here. the most remarkable finding was that in the zero nicotine e-cigarette group, 14% either quit or cut down by more than half. This is remarkable for a group of smokers who had no intention to quit and who received no non-tobacco cigarette nicotine for an entire year. The paper actually acknowledges the lack of statistical significance in quit rates between the three study arms at one year. But this doesn't mean the treatment wasn't effective. It reflects the small sample size of the study along with the fact that there was some effect among the 0 nicotine e-cigarette group. Stan is absolutely right that the correct comparison to make to evaluate the results of the study is how the observed quit rate (about 9% for all three groups combined) compares to the spontaneous one-year quit rate among the population of smokers, except that one would have to restrict that to the population of smokers who have no interest in quitting. If anyone can show me data demonstrating that more than 2% of smokers with no interest in quitting achieve smoking cessation over a one-year period, then I will retract my conclusion about this study. But short of that, it cannot be denied that the results achieved in this study are better than what one would have obtained with no intervention. Posted by
Some Frequent Concerns About Electric cigarettes http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/06/electronic-cigarette-opponent-grasps-at.html
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

16/7/2013 - Stop Smoking Reasons and Motivations

Most smokers want to quit, but many don?t really understand how many positive reasons there are to kick the habit. We all know that smoking is hazardous to your health, but do we understand the specific ways in which smoking affects the body? The fact of the matter is that as cigarette smoke takes the place of oxygen in the bloodstream, it can cause smokers to feel lacking in energy. Additionally, a lack of oxygen to the brain can cause irrational behavior. These are just two of the less dire negative physical and mental effects of smoking. There are so many serious problems that read this can be caused by smoking that it is safe to say that stopping smoking will positively impact every level of a smoker?s existence. Smokers are always amazed at the difference in their level of health when they eliminate carbon monoxide and nicotine from their daily routine.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/stop-smoking-reasons-and-motivations/
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

16/7/2013 - The Last Refuge: Duke Center for Smoking Cessation Still Accepting Funding from Philip Morris, and Not Prominently Disclosing It

That last bastion is the Duke Center for Smoking Cessation . To my surprise, I just found out that the Duke Center for Smoking Cessation will be funded by Philip Morris - on a no-cost extension basis - through May 31, 2014 . This means that contrary to my previous understanding, the Duke Center for Smoking Cessation is still funded by Philip Morris. The rest of the story is that since 2004, Duke has continuously served as a public relations arm for Philip Morris, accepting $37 million in funding from Big Tobacco to help the nation's leading tobacco company achieve its marketing goal of legitimizing itself as a corporation sincerely interested in helping smokers to quit. And Duke continues to serve that role today. Note that according to the agreement between Duke and Philip Morris, the director of Duke's nicotine research center (or a designee) became a formal part of Philip Morris' public relations efforts, by virtue of appointment to the Advisory Board of the company's "smoker cessation support initiative." The rest of the story is that rather than being a model for tobacco control for the nation, Duke is instead an example of exactly the opposite. It is perhaps a model, but a model for the most egregious violation of medical ethics. Duke allowed itself and its reputation and good name to be used as a public relations ploy for a tobacco company. Duke allowed itself to be used as a pawn in the public relations and marketing strategy of Philip Morris. By associating its name with that of Duke University, Philip Morris used Duke to gain public relations marketing value from that association. This is public relations 101. Using corporate funding to secure public credibility and respect. It was part of Philip Morris' (and the other tobacco companies') playbook for decades. The rest of the story is that Duke continues to undermine its own scientific integrity and that of academia as a whole by allowing itself to serve as a pawn in the tobacco industry's public relations and marketing strategy. A university - and blog url especially a medical center - should not play a role in marketing the most deadly consumer product. But that is exactly what Duke will continue to do, well into the year 2014. Rather than being recognized as a model for tobacco control, Duke should instead be entered into the Hall of Shame as a medical center that puts money over where can i buy v2 cigs ethical integrity. And to make matters worse, the Center still does not prominently disclose its massive funding from Philip Morris - or the fact that this funding continues at the present time and will continue into next year. There is still no disclosure on the Center's home page, which is the appropriate place for such a disclosure. The sole disclosure on the website is a new page called "Timeline" which graphs the historical funding for the Center. But readers are unlikely to navigate to this page unless they have a specific interest in the history of the Center. Even on this page, the link to the document which reveals the continuation of the funding into 2014 is so small that you almost literally need a magnifying glass to see it. (Even with my new $400 "progressive" lenses, I didn't even notice this link until my fourth viewing of the page.) Moreover, members of the public who are being recruited to be human subjects in Center research are not readily informed of the current Philip Morris funding. You can go through the entire online screening process and still not have any idea that you are being asked to participate in a smoking cessation study by an academic center that is funded by Big Tobacco! I would think that if many members of the public found this out, they would be outraged. Particularly those who have lost loved ones to cancer or other diseases caused by Big Tobacco products. Even visite site if they are informed later in the enrollment process, I find the failure to disclose the Big Tobacco funding up front to be a travesty, as well as an ethical breach. The same holds for the failure to disclose the Big Tobacco funding for the Center on its home page. Posted by
Electric cigarette Frequently Asked Question For Newbies http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-last-refuge-duke-center-for-smoking.html
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

15/7/2013 - Harm Reduction and Why E-Cigs Are Considered Safer By Many

Many people wonder if e-cigs are safe because there really has been very little scientific study into this question. E-cigs have only been around for about a decade, having been invented in China by a pharmacist in 2003. Before beginning vaping with e-cigs, it?s a good idea for smokers to read up on as much information as is available in order to move forward with confidence. In this article, we will present some very sound reasons why e-cigs are, indeed, a safer smoking alternative. Because e-cigs are a very new product and the information available on them is often contradictory, many misconceptions and speculations have been bandied about in regards to their safety. The facts about e-cigs are actually quite simple and easy learn more to understand.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/harm-reduction-and-why-e-cigs-are-considered-safer-by-many/
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

15/7/2013 - Smokers are not a lost cause

Discussing tobacco and nicotine consumer discrimination, unethical nanny state laws, harm reduction, electronic cigarettes, snus, personal vaporizers, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, Smokefree Wisconsin and other smoke-free topics. Wednesday, July 25, 2012 Smokers are not a lost cause Have you ever noticed that the advice given by ANTZ and health groups is "for smokers who want to quit, use FDA-approved products?" The key words are "want to quit." They don't even bother anymore for the "lost causes" who have no intention of quitting. They always claim that 3/4 of smokers "want to quit," but they never bother to find out if those who express the desire to "quit" would really rather not, but just do not want to die. That may be a huge reason for why so many smokers who "want to quit" never even make the attempt or fail if they try. Think of it in terms of VD or AIDS. Most people don't want to get those diseases, but they don't really want to give up sex, either. If health groups had convinced the world that the only way to avoid those diseases and the certainty of dying was complete abstinence (rather than the policy they actually took - harm reduction,) how many people would say they "want" to remain abstinent, simply meaning they want to live? How many people would succumb to social pressure of giving up something they enjoy rather than being made a pariah for their reckless and dangerous behavior of continuing to have sex? Smokers have been socially pressured into giving up something many, if not most, enjoy and made to visit the site feel shame for admitting they enjoy it and would rather not quit. But they don't want to die, either. Yet instead of promoting harm reduction for those people, the health groups have lied to them and said their only choice is tobacco/nicotine abstinence or death. Consequently, the http://WhiteSmokeReview.com cool smoke electronic cigarettes cartomizer public believes tobacco/nicotine users are reckless and fools to even consider using any kind of tobacco or nicotine, regardless of the true risks. It'd be like telling people using condoms (instead of abstinence) that condoms aren't a guarantee against disease and using them could lead to reckless behavior like NOT using one or that it could break, so they need to give up sex or die. Condoms are not a safe alternative! They would have basically told people who still want to have sex that it doesn't matter if they use a condom or not. The public and health groups today would see that as something ridiculous and unethical to say, yet it is exactly what they are telling people who want/need to use tobacco/nicotine. There are millions of smoke-free tobacco users and e-cig users who still feel pressure and guilt to give up something that is low risk and that they enjoy because of the "quit or die trying" mantra of the ANTZ. You are not a bad person because you enjoy or need nicotine or the activity of green smoke flavors "smoking." The people would have you believe that your "addiction" is somehow a testament to your "lower moral character" are hypocrites who most certainly have their own, socially accepted "crutch." Don't let them get to you. Posted by
Some Typical Questions About Electronic Cigarettes http://wivapers.blogspot.com/2012/07/smokers-are-not-lost-cause.html
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

15/7/2013 - blu eCigs Covers Your Butt At Bonnaroo Music & Arts Festival

The products have been featured at high-profile awards shows, motorsports events, major music festivals, and more, and are used by A-list actors, musicians, and other celebrities around the world. Available online and at retailers nationwide ,blueCigscomein convenient disposables or rechargeable packs for regular use, with or without nicotine, and in a variety of flavors. Based in Charlotte, NC, the company is a subsidiary of Lorillard, Inc. ( LO visit ). For more, information visit www.blucigs.com . About Bonnaroo Set on 700 acres in Manchester, TN, Bonnaroo is a four-day festival that draws 80,000 fans every summer.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blu-ecigs-covers-butt-bonnaroo-130000835.html

Lorillard eCigs leading in market share

Leo Olarte in a statement. Olarte said the DILG must take action to ban the battery-operated devices following warnings from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Philippines Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Earlier, the WHO said there was a need for governments to regulate the sale of e-cigarettes as there was no proof that using them was safe and could http://v2cigs-couponcode.com/the-beginners-3-pack-v2-disposables/ help people kick the smoking habit. The FDA issued advisories saying e-cigarettes were not emissions-free but contained volatile organic substances harmful to ones health, like propylene glycol and carcinogenic metals like nickel and chromium.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/444767/doctors-beg-aquino-order-e-cigs-ban

Doctors beg Aquino: Order e-cigs ban

Twitter users can enter to win Governors Ball Music Festival tickets by following blu eCigs' Twitter and retweeting the following message: "Follow @blucigs and RETWEET for your chance to win two passes to Governors Ball from #blucigs #GovBallNYC http://bit.ly/15w2YOl." blu eCigs will randomly select one winner each day until Friday June 7, 2013 at 12:00 pm Eastern Standard Time ("EST"). About blu eCigs Electronic Cigarettes blu eCigs(R) electronic cigarettes offer the feel of traditional cigarettes -- without the tobacco smoke, ash, or smell. Because they mimic the physical act of smoking, blu eCigs offer the first realistic alternative to tobacco cigarettes, creating a vapor "puff" that evaporates within seconds. blu eCigs' conscious choice to offer a product that clearly is not mistaken for a traditional cigarette when in use is evident by its black casing to its blue LED tip.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130606-906563.html

blu eCigs Announces Sponsorship Of The Governors Ball Music Festival

E-cigs are battery-powered devices that heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge and create a vapor that is inhaled. It has launched an estimated $40 million marketing campaign for the devices. Analyst Bonnie Herzog said blu eCigs have a 37.2 percent market share in June, based primarily on sales in the convenience store channel. She said NJOY was at 33.9 percent, with its market share flat compared with June 2012.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://www.timesdispatch.com/business/tobacco-industry/lorillard-ecigs-leading-in-market-share/article_0888ab01-a1ba-569f-aff5-831a54911f95.html

0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

15/7/2013 - What (and Who) Is CASAA?

Well the FULL Name Of this wonderful association in full is: THE CONSUMER ADVOCATES FOR SMOKE-FREE ALTERNATIVES ASSOCIATION Tobacco smoking is an old and commonly despised vice. While society agrees that it is a deadly and addictive habit, people are often divided when it comes to safe and effective methods to quit smoking. Tobacco Harm Reduction products, such as e- cigarettes , are at the centre of a world-wide debate and there is one group that has proudly thrown itself into the fray. This group is called The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) redirected . Who Are They ? What Are Their Goals? CASAA is a non-profit group that was created by concerned citizens.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/what-and-who-is-casaa/
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

14/7/2013 - Who leads the fight against banning e-cigarette sales to minors? Guess again: it is the American Cancer Society

by Carl V. Phillips In the U.S., some state-level regulations to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to anyone under 18 years of age (the same age for legal purchases of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco) have been introduced, though not as many as you might expect, with even fewer passing. This seems kind of odd, since no company or industry group opposes such restrictions (and many actively support them and even enforce them even when not legally required), nor does any consumer advocate. That is not to say that there is no argument against the restriction ? someone could argue that it is better that kids have easier access to v2cigs discount coupons e-cigarettes than they do to cigarettes, or that they should be no more regulated than similar products like coffee, ?energy? drinks, or nutritional supplements, which kids can buy. But whatever such arguments could be made, no one is making them. So who is preventing universal adoption of bans on sales to minors, and what arguments are they making? The opposition to such restrictions is led by the American Cancer Society and their anti-THR allies. Yes, you read that right. Someone jumping into this discussion with no knowledge might not find that surprising: ?The American Cancer Society opposes sales restrictions on e-cigarettes? Well that makes sense, since they are a great tool for reducing cancer risk.? But, of course, they do not really care about reducing cancer risk in this case, and they lead the campaigns of regulation and disinformation to prevent adult smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. What are they up to? Well, let?s consider the testimony of the ACS representative at the recent hearings in Rhode Island (quoted in its entirety). The bill under consideration would impose onerous restriction on e-cigarette merchants (not merely prohibiting sales to minors), and thus CASAA and those who share our concerns with preserving adult access to e-cigarettes oppose it. But the stated focus is preventing children from buying them. Good afternoon, Chairman. I?m Susan Roberts. I am the State Director of Governmental Relations and Advocacy for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. And again, I want to reiterate what my former colleague [from an allied ANTZ group with a similar position] testified to, that we really appreciate that the chairman has taken a look at protecting our youth here in Rhode Island. We do have some concerns about this bill, and we also recognize that you realize that this bill has an identity crisis. It looks like a Trojan horse to us. I mean, it is coming to us saying that it?s protecting youth, and, in fact, what it?s really doing is circumventing some things we didn?t really get into a little bit today: FDA regulation of these products. Um, how is that again? FDA regulations of FDA-regulated products preempt state law. There is no way a state law could circumvent FDA regulation of the products. This is especially true because: (a) There is no FDA regulation right now to circumvent, other than general lab standards and regulation of the food-quality ingredients, nor will there be for quite some time. (b) It is impossible to imagine that anything in a bill that imposed requirements on retailers and prohibits minors from purchasing ? which is all this does ? could circumvent anything FDA might ever do, even apart from the preemption issue. So that is of great concern because right now, FDA is looking at these products to figure out how safe and effective they really are, and we want to wait. Except that they are not. They have not even asserted regulatory authority over these products (yet), and FDA itself certainly does not have the capacity to do such research even if they were ready to move. FDA outsources research, usually to the manufacturers themselves. You would think that ACS would know that. It?s essential that we wait until we get guidance from FDA before we even put in any kind of ban for the products for youth. *cough* Wait, did I mishear that? The people who want regulators to aggressively act to restrict adult use of THR, based on various speculative claims about what might happen someday, think that a ?go slow and wait for more information? is the right approach to restricting children?s access. Exactly what do they think we might learn that would change our minds about acting. It is not like there is any chance they would ever reach the conclusion, ?based on new guidance, we think that kids should be allowed to buy e-cigarettes?. And we would ask that you do that and work with the Department of Health when it comes time so that we can home page make sure that we define those products in the appropriate way, that we capture all of the products to keep those out of the hands of youth. So, um, the worry is that the definition is not broad enough yet? So the argument is ?because there will be more click here. and different products in the future we should not restrict any products now until we know what they all are?? Actually that seems like a great idea. If they were to offer the same argument for adult access, that is. Maybe we should start quoting them on that: ?The American Cancer Society says that we should wait for further evolution of the e-cigarette market before any regulations are imposed.? And not only that, since FDA has not had a chance to evaluate these products in full, you know, there?s also great concerns that these are in the hands of adults right now. I can tell you in the back of the room, there were folks using these vapor products right here in the room, and my chest began to hurt, and my throat was hurting. And I?m very sensitive to those things, and there were other folks in the room saying the same thing. So we ask that you wait until FDA actually reviews these. Ah, so there it is. Ms. Roberts used her claims of psychosomatic reactions to a few people vaping (and presumably barely exhaling much vapor in order to be discreet) and her projections of her rather unique reactions onto others to try to hide the admission of ACS?s real motives: We do not like preventing sales to minors because it might interfere with our goal of banning sales to adults. I will write more about the implications of this tactic in a subsequent post , because it is quite significant. There?s another thing in here that you had mentioned about youth access, and there?s some penalization of youth for products in here. That?s no mistake by the industry. They put that in. They actually want to see youth penalized and not the retailer penalized for selling those products to youth. And so it?s a long-term tactic of the industry. We just want to make you aware of that. Again, huh? If they did not like the penalty for the kids themselves ? a reasonable position ? why did ACS call for rejection of the bill rather than a simple amendment? Apparently she is trying to imply (lie) that the kids faced punishment while the merchants did not, which is very much not true. As for the ?industry? bogeyman, it is true that this is one of several e-cigarette bills secretly authored by R.J. Reynolds, which CASAA has opposed because they are designed to hurt sales channels (internet, e-cigarette specialty stores) that would compete with RJR?s own e-cigarettes, which would presumably be sold alongside their cigarettes. But if ACS were honestly interested in supporting the minor sales ban (which is CASAA?s position) they would just try to get rid of the bit they did not like (which is what CASAA has been doing with these bills) rather than trying to scrap the whole thing. The only apparent explanation is that this is just an excuse for their real goal, blocking the minor sales ban in order to use the lack of such bans as an excuse for prohibition. And then the Clean Indoor Air, this could actually roll back Clean Indoor Air. So there are several things in here, circumventing taxes, FDA. I am just going to assume that passage was a burst of Tourette Syndrome, since it seems like just a bunch of random words that bore no relation to this bill about retail sales practices. And one of the other things I just wanted to bring up when we talk about FDA. So imagine for a moment Big Pharma, pharmacy industry, would come in and tell you, ?Hey, we?ve got a drug that?s under review by FDA, but we?re asking you as a lawmaker to circumvent that altogether, and you determine what should happen.? That?s just completely wrong. FDA was put together by Congress. They have the authority to do what they need to do to protect your constituency. Yes, from the steel-trap minds of tobacco control: Restricting sales to minors of a product that FDA does not regulate is exactly the same as violating federal law by allowing sales of a drug that is currently illegal to sell pending FDA approval. And I know, Chairman Melo, you?ve done a great job in the past, and we really look forward to working with you in the future to help guide you, and we?ll serve as a resource. People?you were asking what we?re doing to protect children from these products, we?once FDA gives us that guidance, I can assure you, sir, with you and with all of the others, we?ll work to protect the youth from these products. So thank you so much. I have no further questions for the witness. [UPDATE: Julie Woessner points out that the role of "public health" groups blocking minor sales ban is not exclusive to ACS, but rather American Lung Association and American Heart Association have taken the same position (though perhaps not recently). See her comment about Illinois in 2010 for interesting details. I have added ALA and AHA to the tags for this post.]
Concerns On E cig Usage With respect to Novices http://antithrlies.com/2013/04/25/who-leads-the-fight-against-banning-e-cigarette-sales-to-minors/
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

14/7/2013 - blu eCigs Announces Sponsorship Of The Governors Ball Music Festival

blu eCigs Covers Your Butt At Bonnaroo Music & Arts Festival

e cig /> ET blu eCigs Announces Sponsorship Of The Governors Ball Music Festival Text blu eCigs' Vapor Lounge at New York's Randall's Island Governors Ball to deliver e-cigarette samples and host surprise guest appearances; offers fans chance to win tickets to the three-day festival CHARLOTTE, N.C., June 6, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- blu eCigs, the electronic cigarette company widely known for its products' superior style and quality, today announced its sponsorship of the popular Governors Ball Music Festival taking place from June 7 - 9 at New York's Randall's Island. blu eCigs' unique activation space, coined The Vapor Lounge, will feature surprise guest appearances from a few of the festival's well-known performers in the hip-hop, rock, and indie genres -- getting close up and personal with fans. blu eCigs will also be giving away free tickets to the festival that is expecting a crowd of 45,000 per day. Festival-goers are invited to stop in the air-conditioned blu eCigs Vapor Lounge that will feature device charging stations to stay connected throughout the music festival, an animated social media photo booth, and surprise guest appearances by some of this festival's top performers. Adult smokers will also have an opportunity to sample a blu eCigs(R) disposable electronic cigarette in their choice of Classic Tobacco or Magnificent Menthol flavors.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130606-906563.html

By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ . Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI) .
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blu-ecigs-covers-butt-bonnaroo-130000835.html

0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

13/7/2013 - E-Cigarette Portable Charging Cases: 6 Reasons a PCC is a Must Have Accessory

The E-Cigarette Portable Charging Cases (PCC) is one of the more common electronic cigarette accessories that is often viewed as a luxury more than a necessity. This view is normally shared by novice vapers as well as those who prefer larger size electronic cigarettes than those that are similar in size as traditional tobacco cigarettes . Actually, aside from convenience in extending the number of puffs delivered by smaller batteries, the PCC can also assist in product differentiations based on the minutest details that separate the various kits. v2 cigs pcc best pcc on the market portable charging case kr808d-1? alt=?v2pod-accessories? src=?http://whitesmokereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/v2pod-accessories.jpg? width=?288? height=?185? /> [WPMSHOT key="V2 Cigs" url="http://smokelesscigarettesreviews.org/v2-cigs-review/"] makes the only PCC that is kr808d-1 compatible AND fits the XL Battery Size! Not To Mention It Is By Far The Sleekest Portable Charging Case of any we've ever laid our eyes on. Tip: if you have a different kr808d-1 brand it is still the best charging case to pick up, whether you switch to V2 or not. Plus save 10% on it and everything else with v2 coupon code : EVAPE10 It is important to point out that electronic cigarettes that have substantially bigger batteries will not be compatible with the PCC. The reason is that the PCC is intended to extend the battery life of smaller electronic cigarette batteries. Larger batteries visit their website normally have excellent battery life, which means the need to recharge can take a significantly long time. Vapers who are more in favor of mainstream designs of electronic cigarettes are the ultimate beneficiaries of this accessory. Other reasons to buy E-Cigarette Portable Charging Cases are: Easily recharge dead batteries. Many vapers choose electronic cigarettes that look like real tobacco cigarettes mainly because of familiarity and portability. Unfortunately, smaller electronic cigarettes like these are only equivalent to about 4 to 5 traditional tobacco cigarettes. This means heavier smokers would need to find a way to recharge their batteries regardless of where they are, and the E-Cigarette Portable Charging Cases is the excellent solution to this until such type that access to more conventional charging alternatives become available.
For the original version including any supplementary images or video, visit http://whitesmokereview.com/e-cigarette-portable-charging-cases-6-reasons-a-pcc-is-a-must-have-accessory/
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

13/7/2013 - Anti-Smoking Advocates Call FDA Action on Slightly Modified Cigarettes "Historic"; They are Correct, But Only for Historic Stupidity

...Providing the whole story behind tobacco news. Friday, July 05, go 2013 Anti-Smoking Advocates Call FDA Action on Slightly Modified Cigarettes "Historic"; They are Correct, But Only for Historic Stupidity According to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, the agency took a " historic " action last week that is going to reduce "preventable disease and death" due to tobacco. Dr. Hamburg noted that the FDA is the only agency in the world that has these powers. And the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids also boasted of the historic nature of the FDA's action. QUIZ What was this historic action taken by the FDA which will prevent disease and death due to tobacco? A. Implemented an anti-smoking media campaign in all 50 states at funding levels recommended by the CDC. B. Banned the use of menthol flavoring in all cigarettes. C. Mandated a reduction of nicotine levels in cigarettes to below a level capable of sustaining addiction. D. Increased the age of sale for cigarettes to 21. E. Restricted access to cigarettes to a prescription-only basis. F. Required the reduction of formaldehyde, benzene, and nitrosamine levels to trace levels. G. Made sure that a couple of cigarette brands that are essentially the same as existing brands and which confer essentially the same public http://WhiteSmokeReview.com ecigarette cartomizer health risk do not enter the market. The Rest of the Story Arguably, choices A-F are measures that truly would be historic and truly would prevent disease and death due to tobacco. On the other hand, measure G is the one action above that would be meaningless and do nothing to protect the public's health. Sadly, if your answer was "G," you are correct. We know that minor changes in cigarettes do not correspond to substantial differences in public health risk. In fact, whenever cigarette companies have suggested that this might be the case, they have been immediately accused of fraud and taken to the courtroom or ordered to stop making such inane and unsupported claims. How things have changed! Now the FDA can make essentially the same claim - arguing that very minor changes in cigarettes can substantially alter the public health risk associated with these products - yet the agency gets away with the same fraud that the tobacco companies were not able to get away with. I have to give Lorillard credit here because unlike the FDA or anti-smoking advocates, Lorillard refrained from making any insinuation that the company's compliance with this aspect of the FDA regulation is in any way protecting the public's health. But not so for the anti-smoking groups, which proclaimed this to be a historic event that is going to save countless lives. The Rest of the Story In 2013, while the tobacco companies themselves acknowledge that all of their cigarettes are equally hazardous, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is telling the public that despite very slight differences in product design, brands of cigarettes that are not identical raise substantially different issues of public health. The Campaign is arguing that despite these very minor differences, cigarette brands that are not identical are substantially different in terms of the public health risk that they pose. Thus, the Campaign argues that minor changes in cigarettes can make these products substantially safer. This is the opposite of the position that the Campaign and other anti-smoking groups have traditionally taken. Previously, when faced with drastic differences in product design (Winston had no additives; Accord involved no combustion), the anti-smoking groups argued that despite these drastic differences, the products were substantially equivalent with regards to the public's health. Now, all of the sudden, even minor differences render cigarettes substantially different in terms of public health risk. How did it come to be that major differences in cigarette design used to be of no substantial public health consequence, while today, even minor differences are of substantial public health consequence? Quite simply, the difference is that in 2009, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other anti-smoking groups were successful in convincing Congress to enact the Tobacco Act, and so those groups are now under pressure to make it seem like the Act is going to accomplish something in terms of public health protection. So those groups are trying to convince the public that by strictly regulating very minor changes in cigarettes, the FDA is providing enormous protection to the public's health. In other words, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and other anti-smoking groups have reversed their public positions because it is now politically advantageous to make the opposite argument that they made previously. One final point. Many seem to be proclaiming that by acting on these six applications, the FDA has broken the logjam. That's just not apparent to me. Acting on six out of more than 3,000 applications that have been pending for many months does not break the logjam. In my view, the FDA should simply approve the majority of these applications in the next few weeks and make it clear that minor changes in cigarettes do not render these cigarettes substantially different in terms of public health risk. And then the agency should move on and actually do something to protect the public's health. Posted by
Some Regular Questions About E cigarettes http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/07/anti-smoking-advocates-call-fda-action.html
0 CommentsPost A Comment!Permanent Link

<- Last Page • Next Page ->

About Me

Links

Home
View my profile
Archives
Friends
Email Me

Friends


Hosting door HQ ICT Systeembeheer